![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Willful on May 31, 2013, at 8:27:52
I was thinking that sometimes in our desire to push away viewpoints that are not well properly documented, and which containing exaggerations or incorrect assertions, we might be inadvertently magnifying the false messages.
And also we may be collaborating in hijacking a thread that someone, especially someone new, starts with a clear medical question that needs to be addressed in its entirely-- and given more consideration-- but this consideration is precluded by our all being drawn into taking exception from the one wrong view.
I notice this happening recently-- that a complex questions or set of concerns by a poster begins to be discussed-- and this back-and-forth of the old adversaries starts up and we all throw ourselves into the task of refuting the false statements which sometimes are made.
I find such a dilemma here that we can either completely disrupt a person's getting help in order to defeat something, only to negate the real discussion-- or to become a springboard ourselves for the repetition of false information.Yet if we don't, the false information is often repeated more and more anyway.
Still, maybe we keep taking our eyes off on what's important and even become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Possibly the problem is that if you don't have firsthand knowledge of the medical issue-- but do know that there's something wrong with one of the answers-- that you don't have much to contribute other than to jump in with your rebuttal. So you become part of the wrangle.I don't have any solutions here. But I do wonder if we aren't overly concerned with the false information, which can quickly be flagged by one or two people as wrong, without its becoming the main focus of a thread that should be about the original query.
I know this has been pointed out-- and yet we haven't really taken it in-- and let it guide our actions yet.
Posted by Phillipa on May 31, 2013, at 9:54:59
In reply to do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Willful on May 31, 2013, at 8:27:52
Redirecting back to original medical question as Scott suggested with the changing back the subject line to original one is a good idea. And then not even reading the others. Usually they same thing anyway? Phillipa
Posted by SLS on June 1, 2013, at 5:23:02
In reply to do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Willful on May 31, 2013, at 8:27:52
As a rebuttal, perhaps you can offer a series of educational statements that are not directed toward anyone in particular and not meant to be entered into a debate or argument. You would, of course, refrain from adding the name of the previous poster to the subject line and reset the subject line verbiage if necessary. Don't make it personal. This might be difficult to do, as some people will attempt to bait you into having an argument - something that requires two or more people.
This is an appealing idea. I don't know how easily it can be implemented in real life, though. I'm going to give it a try.
- Scott
Posted by ed_uk2010 on June 1, 2013, at 9:37:33
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem? » Willful, posted by SLS on June 1, 2013, at 5:23:02
>do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?
Yes, probably. I should avoid replying to certain posts. My replies are ignored entirely by the person in question so they really serve little purpose. It's just the desire to correct misinformation, perhaps for the benefit of others. In order to reduce the desire to reply, it may be best not to read particular posts.
Posted by Dinah on June 2, 2013, at 8:21:02
In reply to do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Willful on May 31, 2013, at 8:27:52
I really do think Dr. Bob ought to move it to a new thread, to keep the original poster the focus.
I never before was in favor of forcing threads to keep on topic, and some of my favorite threads were wonderful wandering tangents.
But lately it has seemed completely different to me. Perhaps it isn't wandering tangents anymore so much.
(I don't necessarily think allowing false or inflammatory statements to be unchallenged is the right answer either, or one likely to appeal to newcomers unless they've extensively read the board before posting.)
Posted by ed_uk2010 on June 2, 2013, at 8:26:13
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Dinah on June 2, 2013, at 8:21:02
>But lately it has seemed completely different to me. Perhaps it isn't wandering tangents anymore so much.
I think it's because the nature of the tangents is usually so incredibly negative.
Posted by SLS on June 2, 2013, at 10:12:03
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem? » Dinah, posted by ed_uk2010 on June 2, 2013, at 8:26:13
Personally, I would hate to see the routine redirection of posts every time there is a change in the subject line or a perceived drifting in topic. What would be the criteria for determining the nexus of a post as judged by the moderator? How would the posters judge the moderator's precision in making such determinations?
I don't think that the paradigm of the system is necessarily broken. It may be that it is the administration of that system that requires consideration. Sometimes, I think that the suggestion to avoid overgeneralization and exaggeration as described in the guidelines of civil communication as outlined in the website FAQ page is being neglected. However, the determination of these proscriptions requires subjective judgment.
Perhaps it is best not to engage someone under certain circumstances. It might be better to offer an alternate explanation or opinion without entering into a debate with an individual and to direct them to the larger readership. To do otherwise is to legitimize. It might be better still to not respond at all. It is sad, but sometimes someone must cry alone.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on June 3, 2013, at 1:46:38
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by SLS on June 2, 2013, at 10:12:03
I was thinking mostly of threads where there are many responses rebutting a false idea that some misinformed person has. There are often quite eloquent, or well-informed posters-- who make good individual points-- Yet over time the good responses, as the false information is reiterated in response to corrections, each become another opportunity for the original misinformation to be re-posted.
At some point, answers to the false claims start to become almost a mechanism for hijacking the thread-- as the thread becomes more about the argument among frustrated people about the misinformation.
I'm not sure what the solution is, other than for people to try to hold back if they see that bad information is already sufficiently disproved-- or at some point for those of us who are tempted to restrain themselves-- despite how incredibly necessary it might seem not to let false information stand.
Maybe at some critical mass, the back and forth could be deemed a new topic-- and everything that contributed to that could be reposted by Bob-- leaving the real question and real information about it in one thread. It would be a judgment call, and might involve us in further arguments about whether it had been properly done-- IMHO, the last thing I would want is for everyone to get upset because Bob made calls that seemed unfair-- ie if we went back to all the bad feelings that we used to have.
I don't know the solution, but it seems to happen a fair amount- as I read these long threads, I start to wonder what happened to the person who started it all-- who seems to be somewhat forgotten on the sidelines by then.
Posted by SLS on June 3, 2013, at 6:37:59
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Willful on June 3, 2013, at 1:46:38
> Maybe at some critical mass, the back and forth could be deemed a new topic--
I agree.
I, for one, will try to reduce my participation in back-and-forth exchanges with certain people. I hope to be able to establish a balance that will move a conversation more forth than backwards. I'm not sure that I can do it, but I might as well experiment with the idea.
At this juncture, Dr. Bob seems reluctant to block people from posting. This is a change in moderation that should help prevent Psycho-Babble from deteriorating into an ugly slugfest replete with personal and uncivil attacks - most of these being directed at the moderator.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 4, 2013, at 5:54:02
In reply to Re: do rebuttals sometimes become part of problem?, posted by Willful on June 3, 2013, at 1:46:38
> Maybe at some critical mass, the back and forth could be deemed a new topic-- and everything that contributed to that could be reposted by Bob-- leaving the real question and real information about it in one thread. It would be a judgment call, and might involve us in further arguments about whether it had been properly done
I'm not sure what the answer is, either. I agree, it would be a judgment call. Right now, my idea is to be guided by notifications. And of course to redirect further arguments here.
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.